Discussion Board

The white rice/bread thing is driving me nuts right now because my brother has come to visit for the Passover holidays and this is ALL he eats. He refuses to touch brown rice, whole grain bread, whole wheat pasta, etc. He gets into a hissy fit when there isn't white bread in the house and made my mom go out especially to buy him a loaf of french white bread, which she never has in the house.

Needless to say, he's obese and started a year or so ago to take cholesterol lowering meds (which are causing him issues with knee pain, which he's denying). Surprise, surprise, right?

I'm so glad that my mom is not completely falling for it and makes sure to have plenty of whole grain products around the house for those of us who have much more sound nutritional habits .

Djuna

Maybe you can get your brother to take the 'Eat More Starch' white bread challenge:

http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2011nl/dec/111200.htm

Kate

Ha! I had read Fuhrman's and McDougall's books and came to this website since Fuhrman charged for his. I was one of "those" people. I didn't understand the chilly reception to my comments until someone pointed it out. Since I've seen the light and felt the results which speak for themselves I avoid mentioning Dr. F. His overgeneralizations and jumping to delusions on questionable date is a real turn off.

Brad

This thread made me think of something. Back in the 80's when low fat eating was all the rage, I kept my fats pretty low and also ate a lot of white rice. I mean a LOT. That was the era of Uncle Ben's Converted White Rice, and I loved it. Back then, some of us just didn't understand the importance of fiber and ate white rice and pasta and just focused on limiting fats. At least I did. And guess what? White rice and all, I was the slimmest I'd ever been in my life.

Now I eat brown rice AND avoid fats, but I know white rice never made me diabetic or sickly (and diabetes runs rampant in my family). It just kept me thin! So much for the deadly virtues of white rice. Just one person's observation.

The unfortunate thing is that he is actually playing into the high protein/low carb crowd because their whole premise lately is that ALL starches are bad. They make no distinction between a potato or a pop tart. According to their rhetoric, it's starches, including grains, that cause obesity and disease, not loads of saturated fat and hormone-laden meat.

So, by failing to make a distinction between complex starches and simple ones himself, Fuhrman is really hurting the whole plant based side.

It's difficult enough to get people to try a plant based diet, but ruling out satiating rice and potatoes makes it even worse. The few people I've managed to "convert" to this WOE have only done so because they were thrilled to realize they could eat these healthy grains and starches.

These doctors should get on the same page. Maybe they could quibble over how much rice or potatoes to eat daily, but outright villifying whole grains and complex starches is irresponsible.

Dr. McD tried to facilitate that by having Fuhrman at the last Advanced Study Weekend. Fuhrman then went home and since then has redoubled his attack on rice and taters. But Dr. McD did try!

I am appalled by Dr. Fuhrman's article, condeming certain carbohydrates. The rise of diabetes and cancer in China and Japan has been linked to adoption of a more Western lifestyle. There is a direct correlation between obestiy and diabetes as well as some forms of cancer.

"A key reason for the skyrocketing incidence of overweight in China is they're adopting a more Western lifestyle, Popkin says. The average Chinese adult has shifted drastically from a diet of grains, beans and vegetables to consuming over half of calories from cooking oils, pork, poultry, beef, mutton, fish and dairy foods. Plus, the Chinese are less physically active than they used to be as more people move into sedentary jobs and buy motor scooters and cars, he says."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/wei ... hina_N.htm

I have read many other articles that back this up.

Why? If he sees all the success McDougallers have had for decades, eating grains and starches - with many reversing their diabetes - what possible foundation does he have to suggest that whole grains should be avoided?

There are many individual choices to be made regarding each diet, or combining each diet. Some people may choose to eat more nuts, or more fruit, and others find they can eat more whole grain bread. But that's different than completely villifying the foundations of any particular plant-based diet, which is what he's attempting to do to McDougall's.

Fuhrman's diet is a lot more fruit based than McDougalls, but obviously, this works for many people. So, McDougall isn't saying, "Fruit is bad. Avoid it!". He doesn't seem to believe fruit is an optimal weight loss food, and perhaps Fuhrman feels the same about the potato. That's fine - let people decide which diet works best for them.

But don't suggest that rice or potatoes cause diabetes. He knows better than that. If he doesn't, I'd question his credentials. Does he believe Barnard, Esselstyn, and T. Colin Cambell are misguided too?

The potato, particularly, is one of the best tools we have for encouraging people to explore the plant-based side. Low carbers are all starving for potatoes! If you tell people you're vegan, they just imagine a diet of greens and fruit smoothies, which doesn't get their appetite watering, but if you tell them you're eating all the potatoes you want, their ears perk up.

So, I think there better be very compelling and scientifically proven reasons to start limiting the plant-based menu. It's already an uphill battle to get people to change to this way of eating, so why would anybody on the plant-based side attempt to restrict variety?

He isn't saying whole grains are bad in this post, he says, Now I'm good with the white rice and white flour so I didn't even bother checking on that since it's not what my family eats... but the white potatoes? It was this statement that really concerned me since it's very relevant to how my family eats and if true it's an easy enough switch to make, but I don't want to make it if I don't have to because, yes, I do love those potatoes! Although, I did see the relative risk for replacing a serving of whole grains with potato was given as 1.30 I did not see how they made that determination?

What I find interesting is that if you take a look at their chart here http://www.ajcn.org/content/83/2/284/T3.expansion.html you will notice that those in the highest quintile of potato consumption with a BMI of under 30 had a relative risk of .95... that's right, even with the no doubt smothered in dairy and fat, eating more potatoes if you weren't obese apparently decreased the risk of diabetes. On the other hand those with a lower BMI actually had a much higher risk than the over 30 for french fry consumption which I would've guessed was just because of the trans fats taking up a larger percentage of their overall calories, however they claim that they adjusted for that in coming up with these relative risks... I don't see how that is possible???

So, they weren't comparing plain potatoes, then. People tend to eat their whole grains with a lot less fat, and people who eat whole grains tend to be healthier in general than people who eat french fries...because if you're eating french fries, you're likely eating hamburgers, and refined buns, and soda.

There are just too many confounding factors, but Fuhrman should be educated enough to see through them, especially since he knows McDougall, Esselstyn, and the rest, and, from their DECADES of work with patients, can easily deduct that it isn't the plain, low fat potato that is causing the development of diabetes.

All of these doctors mentioned feel like they have the right to change their minds about most anything diet related. Dr. McDougall always says he has a right to change his mind about most anything. We tend to gravitate to the nutritional guru that best represents our own beliefs about nutrition. For me Dr, McDougall consistently does that. Some of the others less so. But the others have broadened my horizons about health too. Looking back at the books I've read from names like Ornish, Esselstyn, Barnard, etc, I have grown to appreciate what each brings to the table. Yet I gravitate back to Dr. McDougall because his positions tend to mimick mine. Others feel the same way about Dr. Fuhrman. That's okay. What Dr. Fuhrman writes doesn't do anything except perhaps question his judgement at times. But I still appreciate his joining the fight for better health. If you follow his diet, with or without regular potatoes you are going to eat a healthy diet. I might not enjoy it as well as a McDougall meal, but it would suffice. Whether it's supplements, white potatos, glycemic indexes, God knows what else, there are going to be differences when we deal with humans.
We are lucky enough to pick and choose. We can be here on Dr. McDougalls board and tonight can bounce over to Dr. Fuhrmans. It's like a giant supermarket of ideas and viewpoints. I get the best of it all because I can read and make up my mind independently. Perhaps tomorrow Dr. McDougall will make some dietary announcement that will rub me the wrong way. If he does I'll figure it all out the best I can for myself and move on.
Some people have left because of Dr. McDougalls position on unneeded screenings, appointed political leaders, his outspoken comments on people in the news, the list is long. I hope they don't throw everything out because of one particular issue. Same with Dr. Fuhrman. None of us are 100% accurate on everything. Well...maybe I am(?????) but other than that we are all collections of information right and wrong. Most of us are here because we see Dr. McDougall as mostly right. Sounds like a reason to celebrate.
f1jim

Not sure if this has been posted, but here's Jeff's take on potatoes, from some time back:

Jeff's blog on potatoes and diabetes

Nettie

Excellent timing Nettie!!!!!
f1jim

If Dr F feels so passionately about the dangers of white rice then he needs to stop citing the China Study and/or studies from China as reasons to follow his diet. He has done this numerous times over the years, both in his books and on his blog. What does he think the disease-free rural Chinese ate? Nuts? They were only eating 33 grams of fiber a day so they weren't exactly overloading on vegetables either. He can't have it both ways.

He says white rice is not "a longevity promoting food" and that the Chinese diet is not "one we aim to emulate." Well then how does he think the rural Chinese in the Chinese study - or in other studies of rural Asians - achieved longevity in good health? Luck? Genes?

Also while he cites several studies that show associations with high GI and cancer and diabetes, there are so many that show no relationship. Jeff has posted a few in his forum over the years.

Sadly I find myself reading less and less from these forums and this thread is a perfect example of why. Instead of a well informed discussion on the issues at hand and the opposing opinions of Fuhrman and McDougall, I find 4 pages of what is essentially Furhman bashing.

I'm sure most of you understand the resistance and misinformed opinions from your friends, family and colleagues when adopting a plant-based diet. However most of posts in this thread are quick to grab the same ignorant bashing bat when another opinion challenges your ideals.

If for some reason you see an opinion or study that infuriates you, take a breath and walk away. If on the other hand you can contribute to the science or perhaps personal experience on either side of the fence, then by all means post. Don't drag the integrity of great forums like this down to the gutter level of the SAD mentality.